My Voice: How to make our political system less dysfunctional

Nov. 24, 2013

Donald Dahlin

Written by

Donald C. Dahlin

MY VOICE

Donald Dahlin, 72, of Vermillion is a professor of political science emeritus at the University of South Dakota. My Voice columns should be 500 to 700 words. Submissions should include a portrait-type photograph of the author. Authors also should include their full name, age, occupation and relevant organizational memberships. Send columns to Argus Leader, Box 5034, Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5034, fax them to 605-331-2294 or email them to letters@argusleader.com.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

A little more than a year ago, President Obama was re-elected; the Senate remained in Democratic hands; and the House remained under Republican control.

As is the case after such elections, the president and the Republican and Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate promised renewed efforts to work together to solve the nation’s many problems.

As we now know and can plainly see every day, working together to solve our problems hasn’t happened. Instead, we have brinksmanship, name-calling, and general dysfunction.

Why is this?

Most explanations for this dysfunction note our divided government and the deep divisions within the country over both the best way to solve specific problems and over the role of government more generally.

Certainly, I would agree that there is much truth in these explanations.

But, I also believe that there is another very important but very underreported reason for the gridlock that we as citizens have it within our power to address.

Simply put, both the House and the Senate are operating under policies and procedures that are extremely undemocratic and that make resolving the difficult issues we face more, rather than less, difficult. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Take the House of Representatives. Although he has the title of Speaker of the House, John Boehner has chosen to operate as the speaker of only House Republicans. Thus, as his general practice, Boehner has chosen to follow the “Hastert Rule,” named after Dennis Hastert, the GOP speaker from 1999 to 2007. Under this rule, the speaker will not allow any measure to come to a vote on the House floor unless a majority of House Republicans support it.

Think, for a moment, about what this rule means for the working of our democracy. First of all, although the Republicans control 234 or 54 percent of the seats in the House, because of the Hastert rule, only 118 or 27 percent of the Republicans in the House can prevent the entire House from voting on any significant legislation. Put another way, this means that routinely the 201 Democrats (and their constituents) who make up 46 percent of the House membership are effectively and routinely disenfranchised. Put still another way, following the Hastert rule means that 73 percent of the House (180 Republicans and all 201 Democrats) could favor a piece of legislation, such as immigration reform, but be denied the chance to vote on that legislation.

(Page 2 of 2)

Then look at the Senate where, under current rules, 60 votes are required for any meaningful action to be taken. This requirement means in effect that, although the Democrats have a substantial majority with effective control of 55 seats (53 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats), this significant majority cannot act unless it can bring enough Republicans along to create a super majority.

Unlike the Hastert rule, the filibuster in the Senate has a long history. What is relatively new, however, is that Senators now are required only to threaten to filibuster, not actually go on the Senate floor and speak at length to delay legislative action.

So, yes, we have significant policy differences among us, but let’s not make matters worse by allowing the House and Senate to operate under rules that are wildly undemocratic and that work to magnify, not resolve, our differences.

Instead, let’s insist that the speaker be the speaker of the entire House, not a faction of one party and let the entire House vote on any proposal that comes through the House committee process or that has passed the Senate.

And let’s insist that, if the Senate wishes to continue to allow the filibuster, it return to the requirement that an actual filibuster must occur.

Some of you may recall the old Pogo cartoon where Pogo says: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” If we citizens allow these incredibly undemocratic practices in the House and Senate to go unchallenged, we will have met the enemy, and he will be us.